PDA

View Full Version : Crisis in Syria Looks Different Depending on the Channel



Conley
02-24-2012, 01:21 PM
As my colleague Neil MacFarquhar reports, the flood of video documenting atrocities in Syria has intensified in the past 24 hours, with gruesome images broadcast on state television following bomb blasts in the city of Aleppo and more clips posted online by opposition activists of the assault on besieged neighborhoods of Homs.

On Friday, Syrian state media reports, featuring graphic views of corpses, blamed the bombing of military and police targets in Aleppo on “terrorists.” A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, an opposition group of military defectors, denied involvement and called the explosions a cynical government ploy to draw attention from the bombardment of Homs.

A day earlier, residents of Homs told The Times by telephone that there had been no pause in the shelling of contested neighborhoods by government forces. To illustrate the assault on Homs, opposition activists uploaded a stream of video to the Web featuring now-familiar images of heavy weapons fire tearing through the neighborhood of Baba Amr, and distressing clips of civilian casualties.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/crisis-in-syria-looks-very-different-on-satellite-channels-owned-by-russia-and-iran/

Interesting videos of how media shapes our beliefs...coverage of Syria on Iranian and Russian television.

Alias
02-24-2012, 02:04 PM
Does anyone else think it's odd that Obama said we had to intervene in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons. Lots of people being slaughtered in Libya. Where did our "humanitarian" reasons go to?

Peter1469
02-24-2012, 02:06 PM
The oil execs haven't asked Obama to help the Syrian rebels yet....

Alias
02-24-2012, 02:10 PM
Didn't Obama tell us that he had to intervene in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons? Where did our "humanitarian" reasons disappear to in regards to Syria?

Mister D
02-24-2012, 02:20 PM
Didn't Obama tell us that he had to intervene in Libya for "humanitarian" reasons? Where did our "humanitarian" reasons disappear to in regards to Syria?

He was FOS.

Alias
02-24-2012, 02:30 PM
He was FOS.

Yep. He's about the most full of shit President I've ever seen.

MMC
02-24-2012, 04:01 PM
Yes.....quite a different take when media on the other side of the planet is calling Syria a civil-war. Isn't it strange how things are always for a humanitarian reason when concerning Sunni Arabs crying to the World constantly about one thing or another. Yet no one says anything to the Sunni Arabs that are always, thats always starting some civil war, because they cannot be in power. Why is it that the Sunni Arabs the Weaker and Weakest of the Arabs Should be allowed to stay in power or gain power thru the use of Nations?

Are we to believe that should the Saud lose their Country that there would be no more oil? That if the Sunni were to lose any of their Oil producing Countries that the oil would still flow from the same land. Despite who ruled that Country. Isn't it about high time that Sunni suffer the consequences of all their own actions. Even if it includes someone Like Assad, who knows now his days are marked. Someone like Assad who is in a postion to remove about 172 million Sunni Arabs right off the face of the earth. Should we not let Assad go ahead and wipe out as many of the Sunni he can before they get another country to get to him?

jgreer
02-24-2012, 04:05 PM
Are you sayin shia are better than sunni? Dont they both hate us?

Alias
02-24-2012, 04:08 PM
Now is the time to take out the Syrian and Iranian thugs.

MMC
02-24-2012, 04:29 PM
Are you sayin shia are better than sunni? Dont they both hate us?

Yes they both hate us.....and thats the point. The Sunni use the rest of the World to take out their own brothers. Because they are incompetant and unable to do the job themsleves. When it comes to actual fighting on the ground. 1 Shia = 10 Sunni, if not more.

I have no problem with each of them taking one another out. But I don't think the US should support one over the other and prove to the World that we are being hypocrits. As in allowing the Sunni to commit genocide and to start up Civil Wars in Countries where they are not in power. Yet come down on the Shia when they in turn give the Sunni some of their just rewards.

Peter1469
02-24-2012, 04:58 PM
Shiites are more dangerous that the Sunnis, because Shiites believe that they can make Armageddon come sooner than planned by Allah.

MMC
02-24-2012, 05:29 PM
Shiites are more dangerous that the Sunnis, because Shiites believe that they can make Armageddon come sooner than planned by Allah.

Actually I would disagree with you that the Shia are more dangerous. As we know where they stand. That they cannot elevate themselves to a more vaulted position in the World. They lack the ability to work with other nations diplomatically. Thru trade and commerce. As well as just about any other area one can think of.

But now the Sunni are different. They will use the laws of other nations and Democracy to advance that cause of theirs. Which they have never given up. The Sunni are a bit more intelligent. Understanding they have to deal with others.

Peter1469
02-24-2012, 06:16 PM
Actually I would disagree with you that the Shia are more dangerous. As we know where they stand. That they cannot elevate themselves to a more vaulted position in the World. They lack the ability to work with other nations diplomatically. Thru trade and commerce. As well as just about any other area one can think of.

But now the Sunni are different. They will use the laws of other nations and Democracy to advance that cause of theirs. Which they have never given up. The Sunni are a bit more intelligent. Understanding they have to deal with others.

But a Shiite government will think it a rational act to drop a nuke on Israel with the full knowledge that the reprisal from the West would utterly destroy Iran. The leadership has said in the past that it was willing to sacrifice Iran for the sake of Islam..., they think that such a sacrifice will force Armageddon. That is pretty dangerous in my book.

MMC
02-24-2012, 08:42 PM
But a Shiite government will think it a rational act to drop a nuke on Israel with the full knowledge that the reprisal from the West would utterly destroy Iran. The leadership has said in the past that it was willing to sacrifice Iran for the sake of Islam..., they think that such a sacrifice will force Armageddon. That is pretty dangerous in my book.



What Shia Government would Sacrifice Iran? The one ruling it? What good is their threat if they aren't around to experience a world without the Brews? Problem is no one is in the Western World has come out and told them. Once you are done we will Obliterate All of Your People from the planet. Hunted down like a mangy rabid dog. Until every last one of are gone. Forever!

The only Armegeddon will be every other race out to make Sure Arabs No longer Exist. of Course there will be no distinction from the Sunni. So it is a win win situation.....all the way around.

Peter1469
02-24-2012, 09:09 PM
The Iranian government has said as much.

MMC
02-24-2012, 09:14 PM
Do you really think anyone can stop them from getting a Nuke? According to most military assesments. The only thing that can be done.....is to delay their program.

Peter1469
02-24-2012, 09:58 PM
Do you really think anyone can stop them from getting a Nuke? According to most military assesments. The only thing that can be done.....is to delay their program.

Historically we have never seen one society prevent another from achieving a known technology without the utter destruction of the seeking society. It happened during the iron age, but I can't recall the specifics. Suffice it to say the society with iron weapons ended up destroying another culture which was trying to develop that tech. The stronger said stop; the weaker said no; so the stronger killed all of the men, women, children, and farm animals. Problem solved.

With that said, had we had a consistent foreign policy since 1979 we could have caused a regime change by now.